Raise the sell price limit on the trading post

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> There are players who may not wish to sell the item through trades, as they don’t feel comfortable with the risk, and would pay the TP tax. Unfortunately they don’t have the option to sell it for what it’s being traded at because of the price cap.

 

Good, then they should simply sell for under 10k to stay under the cap. Their problem solved.

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > But this is the topic of the thread, market manipulators wanting to increase the gold cap to sell their expensive, manipulate items on the TP the "legit" way.

>

> Fear mongering isn't an argument. If this happens, ArenaNet should have GMs to deal with it. And no, I don't have anything that would be priced at that value. But the best way for a gold sink to work is to let it work.

>

 

It is working, why "fix" it? I can think of a couple of reasons off the top of my head, but there's nothing I want to share here, because I don't want any forced vacations from the board. But how do I know it's working? Because items are staying in a reasonable-ish range in game. The only way to get the "worth" of the items is to take it off site to do it. I said it before, but I'm surprised that ANet allows this to the point where it's openly discussed on their forums.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> Wouldn’t it be better for all transactions to occur within the TP?

 

No it wouldn't. Each marketplace, heck even credit cards, have a limit on how much you can spend at once on one purchase. Having transactions within the TP is all good, but only a tiny part, having items at prices beyond certain caps (I repeat we are talking about 600$ value items here) is not what any sensible company would allow. It might be "worth" 20k gold for some people, but is it worth 1200$? (the equal value in real money) Should virtual items in a video game even be priced at prices 100 times higher than the main product? Where is the line? Even the Steam wallet has a limit of 2000$, that's ~33333 gold in Guild Wars 2.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > The thread is about the price cap and not whether you believe the price of an item is manipulated.

> > >

> > > I'm not sure that the two concepts are exclusive. Without manipulation, would there be a need for a price cap? Not trolling, just trying to understand the two.

> >

> > Wouldn’t it be better for all transactions to occur within the TP?

>

> Yes, I agree. However, I don't know how Anet can police people trading outside of it.

 

I don’t believe there would be an easy way to police those type of transactions.

 

The issue with the current cap is that it prevents players who get it as a lucky drop from selling it at a price that others are willing to pay. For those that are willing to pay a lot of gold for them, they’re essentially stuck setting a buy order at the cap and waiting in a queue for it to be their turn to get it from someone who happens to instant sell theirs.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > The items didn’t magically come to exist in those players inventories. Regular players got them as drops and they’re forced to either sell at 10K or do 3rd party trades in order to sell them for what they’re being sold for.

>

> "Forced" is a strong word, if they don't like selling the items for 10k they can try lower values. As for going to 3rd party websites that's also their own fault for not setting values under the 10k cap. That's not a problem with the cap, but with how much those players want to value their items.

>

 

If you got the chak egg as a drop, would you sell it at 5K (example) if that’s the value you feel that it’s worth? What would that look like in the system as it currently is? Would you not want to sell the chak egg at the price that others are willing to pay for it?

[Sobx.1758]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > And if that's not what you're talking about, then what exactly is the downside of increasing the cap?

>

> See it this way, 10k gold is 600$ so the upper limit Anet set for a single item purchase is 600$, increasing the cap means there will be items that are "worth" more than 600$ in the game. How high do you suppose this cap should go? How many dollars is the upper limit a company can put on their in-game items? All markets have a limit, Steam for example has a limit of 2000$, that's 33,333 gold in Guild Wars 2 terms, so items valued above that are beyond even the Steam wallet limit.

>

> You are thinking of the cap as something to do with Gold alone, as something that prevents rich farmers from conducting trade. But Gold and Real money are directly related in this game, as you can buy gold with money. Every marketplace has an upper limit on the transactions they allow.

 

Nobody is talking about irl trades here, it's not the thread about that. It's about trading/selling for ingame items and currencies which is being accomplished by outside means because people want some "trusted middleman" to complete the trade. Raising the tp limit makes it so that people can actually bid for the items ingame and sell them without the risk of getting scammed.

 

But hey, if someone will try to load their money into gems to convert into 100k gold just to "control market for a single infusion" (but nah, doubt anything like that would happen) then why would anet complain about that? Why would players complain about that? Do you need that infusion? Are you getting it currently when it costs 20k? What's the difference for YOU and vast majority of the players? The ingame tp limit just makes it possible for unaware players to get scammed by resellers.

 

 

About the limit themselves: are people currently trading outside of tp selling/trading for the maximum amount of gold/items used instead of gold they can? Did they reach that out-of-tp limit? No? Then what are you talking about here?

[robertthebard.8150]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Sobx.1758" said:

> > > And if that's not what you're talking about, then what exactly is the downside of increasing the cap?

> >

> > See it this way, 10k gold is 600$ so the upper limit Anet set for a single item purchase is 600$, increasing the cap means there will be items that are "worth" more than 600$ in the game. How high do you suppose this cap should go? How many dollars is the upper limit a company can put on their in-game items? All markets have a limit, Steam for example has a limit of 2000$, that's 33,333 gold in Guild Wars 2 terms, so items valued above that are beyond even the Steam wallet limit.

> >

> > You are thinking of the cap as something to do with Gold alone, as something that prevents rich farmers from conducting trade. But Gold and Real money are directly related in this game, as you can buy gold with money. Every marketplace has an upper limit on the transactions they allow.

>

> Nobody is talking about irl trades here, it's not the thread about that. It's about trading/selling for ingame items and currencies which is being accomplished by outside means because people want some "trusted middleman" to complete the trade. Raising the tp limit makes it so that people can actually bid for the items ingame and sell them without the risk of getting scammed.

>

> But hey, if someone will try to load their money into gems to convert into 100k gold just to "control market for a single infusion" (but nah, doubt anything like that would happen) then why would anet complain about that? Why would players complain about that? Do you need that infusion? Are you getting it currently when it costs 20k? What's the difference for YOU and vast majority of the players? The ingame tp limit just makes it possible for unaware players to get scammed by resellers.

>

>

> About the limit themselves: are people currently trading outside of tp selling/trading for the maximum amount of gold/items used instead of gold they can? Did they reach that out-of-tp limit? No? Then what are you talking about here?

 

If nobody is talking about outside trades, why are we reading about selling items on third party websites, which is an outside trade, and why is that argument brought in by people that want the cap raised? I know I certainly didn't introduce it to the dialog, I didn't even know about it until I read about it here. Something's fishy here, and I'm not sure what it is, but the current system is keeping a lid on prices overall, and that's a good thing. "But I can get more outside" isn't a valid argument. It is, unfortunately, the same argument I've seen put forth by people that got banned for buying gold from third party sites. My Legion leader in Aion had to buy another copy, and create a new account because he didn't know that that was against the rules, since it was actively spammed all over to do it. It was his first MMO.

 

**_I AM NOT MAKING THAT IMPLICATION HERE_**. I am merely pointing out the similarity of the argument.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> If you got the chak egg as a drop, would you sell it at 5K (example) if that’s the value you feel that it’s worth? What would that look like in the system as it currently is? Would you not want to sell the chak egg at the price that others are willing to pay for it?

 

I'd sell it for something like 5k just fine. If that caused the trade price of the item to start dropping then it's an extra bonus. As for selling it at the price others are willing to pay, no I don't care about those involved in such how gold transactions.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > If you got the chak egg as a drop, would you sell it at 5K (example) if that’s the value you feel that it’s worth? What would that look like in the system as it currently is? Would you not want to sell the chak egg at the price that others are willing to pay for it?

>

> I'd sell it for something like 5k just fine. If that caused the trade price of the item to start dropping then it's an extra bonus. As for selling it at the price others are willing to pay, no I don't care about those involved in such how gold transactions.

 

It wouldn’t as it would be an instant sell to one of the queued bid orders. In fact, it’d probably be to one of those manipulators being talked about who would then flip it for even more profit. The current price cap essentially allows them to put a wall up with their bid orders so all sales of the item goes to them first as it’s essentially a queue system. This wouldn’t be the case without the cap.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Sobx.1758" said:

> Nobody is talking about irl trades here, it's not the thread about that.

 

You can buy gold with gems. I still remember the headlines when certain CS:GO items sold for prices like 1000$. This will be the same, just because you can buy the items with gold doesn't mean you can't also buy them with real money, thanks to the exchange. "Guild Wars 2 player bought a cosmetic item, Chak Egg Sack, for 1200$", that would make an excellent headline for sure. Increasing the cap, or removing it, won't only affect gold.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> It wouldn’t as it would be an instant sell to one of the queued bid orders. In fact, it’d probably be to one of those manipulators being talked about who would then flip it for even more profit. The current price cap essentially allows them to put a wall up with their bid orders so all sales of the item goes to them first as it’s essentially a queue system. This wouldn’t be the case without the cap.

 

Or you can say the current cap essentially forces players to post items at a value Anet thought to be the "limit" of how much an in-game item should be sold for. If that isn't the case for an item due to its supply being low (or manipulated) then the simple solution would be to increase the supply of said item. It happened with old black lion chest weapons when they re-introduced them (I remember the crying in those threads about it) they could simply do the same. They have a "limit" in place, it's time to enforce it, by not allowing players to "value" an item above it, and that can only happen by increasing the supply of the item.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > It wouldn’t as it would be an instant sell to one of the queued bid orders. In fact, it’d probably be to one of those manipulators being talked about who would then flip it for even more profit. The current price cap essentially allows them to put a wall up with their bid orders so all sales of the item goes to them first as it’s essentially a queue system. This wouldn’t be the case without the cap.

>

> Or you can say the current cap essentially forces players to post items at a value Anet thought to be the "limit" of how much an in-game item should be sold for. If that isn't the case for an item due to its supply being low (or manipulated) then the simple solution would be to increase the supply of said item. It happened with old black lion chest weapons when they re-introduced them (I remember the crying in those threads about it) they could simply do the same. They have a "limit" in place, it's time to enforce it, by not allowing players to "value" an item above it, and that can only happen by increasing the supply of the item.

 

Except we don’t know if that was true or if it’s just a value they just happened to set it at. Things change during a game’s lifecycle as things are added that were not thought of when it launched. The game is over 8 years old after all.

 

Let us not forget that items are allowed to be traded off the TP at our own risk.

 

Please keep in mind that this thread is about the price cap and not the value of any specific item. Calls to increase the supply of an item should be in another thread.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> As opposed to trading outside of the TP? One way or another, the item is being traded at a price greater than 10K.

Yes, but the fact that it needs to be traded outside TP does reduce the number of people willing to do so. At the very least it most certainly reduces the number of potential buyers. Without that, the prices might have been even more outrageous, btw.

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> Calls to increase the supply of an item should be in another thread.

 

Why? Increasing supply of an item solves the need for an increase in the cap, why discuss it in a separate thread? This thread is about increasing the gold cap on the TP, which is a need that can be completely removed by increasing the supply of those items that some want to sell for a price above the cap. Why are you turning down this solution to the thread's question by calling it off-topic?

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > Calls to increase the supply of an item should be in another thread.

>

> Why? Increasing supply of an item solves the need for an increase in the cap, why discuss it in a separate thread? This thread is about increasing the gold cap on the TP, which is a need that can be completely removed by increasing the supply of those items that some want to sell for a price above the cap. Why are you turning down this solution to the thread's question by calling it off-topic?

 

It’s a bandaid solution to an item that was intended to be very rare.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > Calls to increase the supply of an item should be in another thread.

>

> Why? Increasing supply of an item solves the need for an increase in the cap, why discuss it in a separate thread? This thread is about increasing the gold cap on the TP, which is a need that can be completely removed by increasing the supply of those items that some want to sell for a price above the cap. Why are you turning down this solution to the thread's question by calling it off-topic?

Probably because it's a solution they don't want to hear. Even if it's a _good_ solution.

 

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> It’s a bandaid solution to an item that was intended to be very rare.

But was it intended to be so rare it would cost more than the TP cap? Using the argument you love to use in similar cases, i can tell you that almost certaily not. How i know it? Because the cap _is still there_.

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> It’s a bandaid solution to an item that was intended to be very rare.

 

I'm not sure you understand what **band aid solution** means.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/band-aid-solution

> a **temporary** solution that does not deal with the **cause** of a problem

 

Increasing the drop rate of current items and making sure any future items stay under the cap is NOT a band-aid solution, because it's not a temporary fix. It directly addresses the core of the problem (the scarcity) and then fixes the problem that is caused by the cap by not allowing items to surpass it in the first place.

 

On the other hand, increasing the cap IS band aid solution by definition. Because, how much should they increase it for? 10k gold? So the next cap is gonna be 20k? What happens when a future item surpasses the NEXT cap? Especially during its release month, like the latest infusions are even more expensive now. Increasing the cap is a temporary solution, therefore a band aid solution. Meanwhile, increasing the drop rates of items IS a complete solution, the opposite of a band aid solution.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"robertthebard.8150" said:

> > @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > But this is the topic of the thread, market manipulators wanting to increase the gold cap to sell their expensive, manipulate items on the TP the "legit" way.

> >

> > Fear mongering isn't an argument. If this happens, ArenaNet should have GMs to deal with it. And no, I don't have anything that would be priced at that value. But the best way for a gold sink to work is to let it work.

> >

>

> It is working, why "fix" it? I can think of a couple of reasons off the top of my head, but there's nothing I want to share here, because I don't want any forced vacations from the board. But how do I know it's working? Because items are staying in a reasonable-ish range in game. The only way to get the "worth" of the items is to take it off site to do it. I said it before, but I'm surprised that ANet allows this to the point where it's openly discussed on their forums.

 

I admit I am using a simple guide here. A player made a request to raise the cap for the reason they feel something exceeds that cap and they think people will pay that. Most here seem to agree it's better that transactions occur in game for multiple reasons. So, if the seller has to pay gold to list, that is not returnable if it doesn't sell, the risk is on the seller for making a bad call on the value. Buyers can still list their lower offers at no risk. I don't personally think the market would suddenly go crazy if the cap was raised, even if I don't need it to be raised myself. The forums like to argue over arguing at times, and this seems like one of those. Player made their request, leave it to ArenaNet now.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > Calls to increase the supply of an item should be in another thread.

> >

> > Why? Increasing supply of an item solves the need for an increase in the cap, why discuss it in a separate thread? This thread is about increasing the gold cap on the TP, which is a need that can be completely removed by increasing the supply of those items that some want to sell for a price above the cap. Why are you turning down this solution to the thread's question by calling it off-topic?

> Probably because it's a solution they don't want to hear. Even if it's a _good_ solution.

>

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > It’s a bandaid solution to an item that was intended to be very rare.

> But was it intended to be so rare it would cost more than the TP cap? Using the argument you love to use in similar cases, i can tell you that almost certaily not. How i know it? Because the cap _is still there_.

>

>

 

There are bugs still in the game. Does that mean they intended them to be there simply because they haven’t fixed them? There’s such a thing of having something be a low priority.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > It’s a bandaid solution to an item that was intended to be very rare.

>

> I'm not sure you understand what **band aid solution** means.

> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/band-aid-solution

> > a **temporary** solution that does not deal with the **cause** of a problem

>

> Increasing the drop rate of current items and making sure any future items stay under the cap is NOT a band-aid solution, because it's not a temporary fix. It directly addresses the core of the problem (the scarcity) and then fixes the problem that is caused by the cap by not allowing items to surpass it in the first place.

>

> On the other hand, increasing the cap IS band aid solution by definition. Because, how much should they increase it for? 10k gold? So the next cap is gonna be 20k? What happens when a future item surpasses the NEXT cap? Especially during its release month, like the latest infusions are even more expensive now. Increasing the cap is a temporary solution, therefore a band aid solution. Meanwhile, increasing the drop rates of items IS a complete solution, the opposite of a band aid solution.

 

It only impacts that item and the price could still very well increase back to above the cap. The issue is the cap, not the price. Also please be aware that I have also included **removing** in all of my posts along with increasing. It’s concerning to simply ignore that I had said that.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

They just need to increase drop rates of items so there isn't a third market in the game of such a scale. Anet's assertion of the integrity and stability of their market is a joke.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> Also please be aware that I have also included **removing** in all of my posts along with increasing.

 

The thread is about increasing the cap, not removing it. If you want to argue about removing the cap you can create a new thread on the subject.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > Also please be aware that I have also included **removing** in all of my posts along with increasing.

>

> The thread is about increasing the cap, not removing it. If you want to argue about removing the cap you can create a new thread on the subject.

 

Funny. Well the cap can be put at 1 million gold then which effectively acts as if there were no cap. Better?

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> They just need to increase drop rates of items so there isn't a third market in the game of such a scale. Anet's assertion of the integrity and stability of their market is a joke.

 

Having items of value is not in itself a bad thing. It's good that not everything is just junk loot.

[Fuchslein.8639]

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> > They just need to increase drop rates of items so there isn't a third market in the game of such a scale. Anet's assertion of the integrity and stability of their market is a joke.

>

> Having items of value is not in itself a bad thing. It's good that not everything is just junk loot.

 

So, Items for 10k are Junk? aha ^^